Re: Thinking laterally

Cyrus Daboo <> Fri, 27 February 2015 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B61211ACD63 for <>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:48:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.912
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BYjXM0AFQSlT for <>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:48:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F199F1ACD56 for <>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:48:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47F99CF0BA0; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:48:55 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KFwXncYvDXJN; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:48:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7CD70CF0B95; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:48:53 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:48:49 -0500
From: Cyrus Daboo <>
To: Ted Lemon <>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
Subject: Re: Thinking laterally
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.1.0b1 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; size=1903
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:48:58 -0000

Hi Ted,

--On February 27, 2015 at 10:32:51 AM -0500 Ted Lemon 
<> wrote:

>> * I have no problem paying a fee but I am not the decision maker
>> * Paying a fee is better for my CFO
>> * Not paying a fee is even better for my CFO unless we get something for
>> it
> I think if you tell your CFO "As a paid attendee, I am obligated to pay
> full boat, so here's the receipt," your CFO will pay without complaining.
> I am sure there are marginal cases where the CFO will not pay, but I
> would expect cases where the CFO _could_ pay but won't to be fairly
> uncommon.
>> One thing I really would like more of as a remote attendee is video of
>> the sessions. That is something worth paying for and it is something
>> that we should have adequate technology base for. If video streaming
>> sessions really is more than plugging in a camera... we is still doin it
>> wrong.
> What I would like to see here is a camera on every microphone, on the
> presenter, on the chairs, and maybe one pointing back at the room, and
> someone or something picking which camera to send to the feed at any
> given time, plus a separate slide feed.   The feed in each meeting room
> should be the slides plus

Great - so now the CFO can double-check that he is getting value for money 
by making sure his company employee really was paying attention in the 
session they claimed to be in! I wonder how many current attendees would 
suddenly find themselves having to participate remotely after their CFO 
decided they don't really need to spend all that money to send them some 
place to sit in a meeting not apparently doing anything. Or are we also 
going to video the hall ways, so those all important hall way conversations 
(which some people say are more important than the meetings) can be tracked 
by CFOs to determine value for money?

So be careful what you ask for...

Cyrus Daboo